TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Feb26/01)
25 February 2026
Third World Network

UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance deliberates on key climate finance reports

Kathmandu, 25 Feb (Prerna Bomzan): The 39^th meeting of the UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance (SCF 39), which met on 11-12 Feb in Bonn, Germany, deliberated on the zero-order drafts of the technical reports on the ‘Seventh Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows’ (7^th BA) and the ‘Third report on progress towards achieving the goal of mobilising jointly USD 100 billion per year to address the needs of developing countries …and transparency on implementation’ (3^rd USD 100 billion per year progress report).

[In 2026, the SCF is mandated to produce the two technical reports for consideration by the 31^st session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 31) and the 8^th session of the Meeting of Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 8) in November in Antalya, Turkey.]

[COP 17 (decision 2/CP.17, paragraph 121f) mandated the SCF to prepare a biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows, to include information on the geographical and thematic balance of such flows, drawing on available sources of information. One of the functions of the SCF is to assist the COP in the measurement, reporting and verification of the support provided to developing countries. COP 27 (decision 13/CP.27 on long-term climate finance, paragraph 15) mandated the SCF to prepare biennial reports, including a summary of key findings, on progress towards achieving the USD 100 billion per year goal by developed countries, for consideration by COP 29, COP 31 and COP 33 and noted that the final report will be considered in the context of matters relating to the SCF.]

The two work-in-progress zero-order drafts of the 7^th BA and the 3^rd USD 100 billion per year progress report respectively, are not publicly available [primarily limited to SCF members]. However, presentations on the respective chapter structure and key updates were made by the secretariat and the technical team drafting the reports, seeking further guidance from the SCF towards developing the first-order drafts by the next SCF 40 meeting in June. [See details below.]

In the first day of the meeting, a technical expert session was also held to inform the preparation of the two technical reports, including for the preparation of the first biennial report in 2028 on collective progress towards all elements of decision 1/CMA.6 on the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG). [SCF 37 decided at its first technical expert session on the NCQG to continue the data mapping work, aligning it with ongoing work under the 7^th BA, and further, CMA 7 last year mandated the SCF to continue preparatory work in 2026 for the first biennial report in 2028].

The session focused on new and emerging information and approaches related to tracking and assessing climate finance as well as assessing impacts of climate finance. Presentations were made by data providers and data aggregators, namely, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the NDC Partnership and the Climate Policy Initiative, the Climate Finance Group for Latina America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), ODI Global, Oxfam, Publish What You Fund, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Further, the SCF 39, presided over by the newly elected Co-Chairs Elena Cristina Pereira Colindres (Honduras) and Vicky Noens (Belgium), also agreed on the following: the updated workplan for 2026, taking into account the new mandates received from COP 30 and CMA 7, and to continue discussions on strategic planning of its mandated reports in 2026-2028; the programme outline for the 2026 SCF Forum ‘Financing climate action in water systems and the ocean’ and to invite hosting proposals for the Forum by 6 March; to work intersessionally on the 2027 Forum topic based on discussions held at the meeting and for its consideration at the next meeting; and, in relation to the draft guidance to the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism, build on the 2025 approach by continuing to strengthen a facilitative approach to the preparation of the draft guidance. [See the detailed SCF 39 outcomes including the next steps.]

Seventh Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows (7^th BA)

The SCF appointed Co-facilitators Tamim Alothimin (Saudi Arabia) and Karima Oustadi (Italy) for the work on the 7^th BA, and deliberated on the work-in-progress zero-order draft of the technical report prepared on the basis of the general outline agreed at SCF 37 and endorsed by COP 30 in Belem last year.

The secretariat presented an overview of the three chapters in progress: in chapter 1 on the methodological issues related to the transparency of climate finance – for the first time, the 7^th BA will be capturing the first biennial transparency reports (BTRs) of both support provided and received; also, carries a sub-section on emerging methodologies on Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement [PA] [ which is about “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”]; chapter 2 on the overview of climate finance flows – captures global financial flows from developed to developing countries; South-South cooperation; and reflection on relevant quantitative information for the preparation of the first biennial report on progress towards achieving the NCQG; chapter 3 on assessment of climate finance – follows the new structure in line with the agreed outline, capturing trends in alignment with needs and country ownership; impacts and outcomes; access; climate finance in the context of broader trends e.g. reform of the international financial architecture, costs of capital, fiscal space; and reflection on relevant qualitative information for the preparation of the first biennial report on progress towards achieving the NCQG.

A key sticky issue that dominated the deliberations was whether or not there should be a sub-section on ‘emerging methodologies’ on Article 2.1(c) of the PA as contained in the zero-order draft.

Yolando Velasco (Philippines) pointed out that there’s no need for a sub-section on Article 2.1(c) since there is “no mandate” for it for the 7^th BA given that the 6^th BA had carried the chapter on mapping information relevant to Article 2.1(c) in line with the mandate to the SCF that this work would take place every four years [as per decision 4/CP.24]. Ekaterina Vasilenko (Russia) agreed as well to removing the sub-section on Article 2.1(c) in line with the mandate.

Apollonia Miola (European Union) while agreeing to the issue of the mandate, however, argued that the “Article 2.1(c) language is everywhere” when talking about finance flows and hence, it is present by “default” and cannot be avoided. Martin Stadelmann (Switzerland) echoed Miola and stated that the BA is a global report on climate finance flows so it makes sense to include a chapter on Article 2.1(c). Outi Honkatukia (Finland) spoke along similar lines, that the “BA is the vehicle to capture all climate finance flows, all sources without getting tangled up on whether Article 2.1(c) or not”.

Noens (Belgium) said that it was “agreed” in the “outline” and so needs to be reflected, which was seconded by Justine Coutu (Canada) and Hendrikje Reich (Germany) who also added that the outline was endorsed by the COP.

Ali Waqas Malik (Pakistan) said that the outline is general and nowhere it is written that there should be a dedicated space for Article 2.1(c).

Diann Black-Layne (Antigua and Barbuda) stated that her “constituency is very much in favour of Article 2.1(c)”. She said that countries reporting on it is mostly developed countries so the whole picture is still missing, stressing the need to strive for an accurate reflection of Article 2.1(c) which would help in the context of the private sector, with many developed countries counting their implementation of Article 2.1(c) as mobilising private finance.

Hashem Hamawi (Saudi Arabia) speaking as an active observer, on behalf of the Arab Group, underlined the issue of the mandate and the natural cycle of every four years in relation to mapping information relevant to Article 2.1(c). He added that if it is included then other important issues that are currently missing such as the impact of negative response measures and unilateral trade measures and the related loss of revenue of developing countries must be included as well.

Velasco (Philippines) stood ground on sticking to the issue of mandate and firmly made a point that if it is about what the COP endorsed, then he wanted the title of that sub-section on Article 2.1(c) [currently in the zero-order draft] as “Updates on methodologies that integrate climate change considerations into insurance, lending and investment decision-making processes and that include information relevant to tracking consistency with the long-term goal outlined in Article 2, paragraph 1(c), of the PA” as contained in the endorsed SCF report by COP 30 and CMA 7.

The next first-order draft, therefore, will be closely watched on how the controversial sub-section on Article 2.1(c) is addressed.

In closing, the SCF agreed to request the Co-facilitators, with the support of the technical team, to develop a first-order draft taking into consideration comments by the SCF members at SCF 39 and written comments received, for consideration at SCF 40.

3^rd USD 100 billion per year progress report

The SCF appointed Co-facilitators Amjad Abdulla (Maldives) and Martin Stadelmann (Switzerland) and deliberated on the work-in-progress zero-order draft of the technical report prepared on the basis of the general outline agreed at SCF 37 and endorsed by COP 30 in Belem last year.

The secretariat presented an overview of the four chapters in progress, considering the three dimensions of the goal (progress towards mobilising jointly USD 100 billion per year, needs of developing countries, context of mitigation action and transparency of implementation): chapter 1 on the introduction – overview of sources; chapter 2 on approaches used in sources of information – focus on updates and summary of approaches used; aim to clarify differences in approaches; annex of full descriptions; chapter 3 on quantitative and qualitative information and trends – trends to 2023-2024 as available including interlinkages; chapter 4 on progress towards the goal – challenges; lessons learned; opportunities.

Velasco (Philippines) said that the report is about the “USD 100 billion” but there are references to “broader flows” and that the latter will be dealt by the 7^th BA, which was seconded by Alothimin (Saudi Arabia).

Further, Alothimin (Saudi Arabia) urged to assess the “true value” of climate finance provided to developing countries taking into account inflation and increased cost of capital in developing countries and also stressed on avoiding “double counting”. He added to take a “reporting gap” analysis from different developed countries. Citing Oxfam’s previous findings that in 2022, only about “USD 25 billion” was mobilised by developed countries, Alothimin stated that developed countries therefore need to increase their provision and mobilisation in the form of grants and highly concessional finance by around “USD 75 billion”. He pointed out about the different dynamic in the international arena with “some country having left the process” [in an apparent reference to the United States], but that such support cuts should not be hindering developmental needs for climate finance support, emphasising on “burden sharing” under Article 4.3 of the Convention.

Black-Layne (Antigua and Barbuda) brought up the issue of absence of climate finance definition and therefore, asked what methodologies, the technical team drafting the reports, classified as climate finance. She said that for small island developing states (SIDS), a lot of the funding comes as “loans” which is devastating for SIDS as they cannot borrow anymore and this reality has to be clearly reflected in the report, stressing the need to be “rigorously honest”. She also mentioned that “some [in an apparent reference to the U.S] have left the Convention and the Paris Agreement and we need to talk about it since it’s a fact and it will impact on resources”.

[On the query of climate finance definition, the technical experts/consultants responded that they are drawing on relevant reports as key sources of information and hence, not using their own definition or methodology. On the quantitative front, the three key sources being the BTRs, the OECD USD 100 billion goal report series and Oxfam.]

Petrus Muteyauli (Namibia) underlined to find a “balance” on what is provided, mobilised and what is received by developing countries. He said that Namibia in its BTR will not account for loans as climate finance.

Miola (European Union) said that there is “no mandate” on the “assessment of needs” of developing countries which is done by the needs determination report (NDR). Reich (Germany) also commented about the “strong” section on needs and that the USD 100 billion report is not an NDR.

Sho Ikeda (Japan) highlighted that the main point of the report is to capture the “trajectory of finance flows” to developing countries and that in 2022, the OECD said developed countries “reached their target”. He added to stick to the mandate and that it is not appropriate to analyse “burden sharing” by developed countries.

Malik (Pakistan), on the difference of opinion on whether the goal is met or not, clarified that only “one source” claimed as such and that there exists “no uniform methodology”, adding that the report should present the fact as is with “no consensus on accounting” and without any “political” message.

In closing, the SCF agreed to request the Co-facilitators, with the support of the technical team, to develop a first-order draft taking into consideration comments by the SCF members at SCF 39 and written comments received, for consideration at SCF 40.

Exchanges over Doubling of Adaptation Finance Report in 2028

CMA 7 mandated the SCF to prepare a report on the doubling of adaptation finance in line with paragraph 18 of decision 1/CMA.3 [Glasgow Climate Pact], taking into account information in relevant UNFCCC reports and other relevant reports by other sources, as appropriate.

[Paragraph 18 of decision 1/CMA.3: Urges developed country Parties to at least double their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties from 2019 levels by 2025, in the context of achieving a balance between mitigation and adaptation in the provision of scaled-up financial resources, recalling Article 9, paragraph 4, of the PA.]

During the discussion on the updated workplan for 2026 taking into account the new mandates received from COP 30 and CMA 7, Davi Bonavides (Brazil) brought up the future work on the doubling of adaptation finance report in 2028, and on how not to duplicate efforts since COP 30 agreed on calls for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035. He elaborated that given the first biennial report on the NCQG is in 2028 and the tripling goal is in the context of the NCQG, and stressed the need to look at the two together in terms of methodology and make it more effective in terms of SCF resources, to have a better outcome.

[Paragraph 53 of Global Mutirão decision: Reaffirms the doubling by 2025 in paragraph 18 of decision 1/CMA.3, calls for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035 in the context of decision 1/CMA.6, including paragraph 16 thereof, and urges developed country Parties to increase the trajectory of their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties]

Stadelmann (Switzerland) responded that the report mandate is clear about the Glasgow target, which was supported by Ikeda (Japan), Coutu (Canada), Miola (European Union), Reich (Germany).

Alothimin (Saudi Arabia) agreeing with Bonavides (Brazil) said that the focus should be on the “tripling” and that it could be consolidated under the NCQG first biennial report, adding however that this needs to be deliberated by Parties at the COP, further suggesting to consider recommendations to the COP in this regard.

Velasco (Philippines) said that the issue can be looked at from two ways – one, from the policy perspective in terms of the mandate of the report while the other, from the technical perspective which is a continuous process and that one cannot literally stop with the “doubling” and start with the “tripling”. He informed that in 2021-2022, the BA and the USD 100 billion progress report also looked at the trajectory of doubling of adaptation finance. Since the SCF is a technical body, it can look at the trajectory of “tripling” and that there’s also the mandate on developed countries to present the trajectory of adaptation finance. He said that this is one way of ensuring efficiency and coherence of the SCF work.

Miola (European Union) underscored that the SCF has received a “clear, single mandate” on “doubling” and not on “tripling”, unless a new mandate is received next year, which was echoed by Stadelmann (Switzerland) and Oustadi (Italy). Stadelmann further made clear that the “tripling” is in the context of the NCQG and so can be taken in the context of the NCQG report but not in relation to the “doubling” report. He added that the “tripling” is also a “different contributor base” compared to the Glasgow decision.

In conclusion and next steps, the SCF Co-Chairs are to provide suggestions on strategic planning of mandated reports in 2026-2028 for consideration at SCF 40.